Judges involved in Sara Sharif care cases should be named, Court of Appeal told

Woking: There’s a big debate going on about whether judges involved in Sara Sharif’s care cases should be named. The Court of Appeal is looking into it after a judge previously ruled that their names should stay secret.

Back in December, Mr. Justice Williams decided that naming the judges could put them at risk, saying there was a chance of a “virtual lynch mob” coming after them. But now, several media outlets are pushing back, arguing that transparency is key.

They want to make sure the public knows who was involved in these important decisions. Chris Barnes, representing some journalists, said the judge’s decision was unfair and didn’t really hold up under scrutiny. He pointed out that judges often deal with controversial cases, and keeping their names hidden isn’t the norm.

He also mentioned that this kind of anonymity could hurt public trust in the justice system. It’s a pretty serious issue, especially since Sara’s tragic death has raised so many questions about how the system works.

In court, there were some strong opinions about the judge’s analogy comparing the situation to the Titanic. Some lawyers found it a bit off-base. Meanwhile, the children’s guardian and Sara’s father are against naming the judges, citing concerns for their safety due to threats made online.

Documents show that Surrey County Council had been involved with Sara’s family long before her death, raising alarms about neglect and abuse. Sadly, despite these warnings, Sara ended up living with her father, who, along with his partner, was later convicted of her murder.

The appeal is being heard by three senior judges, and it’s expected to wrap up soon. A decision will come later, but it’s clear this case has sparked a lot of discussion about accountability in the family justice system.